Global Warming Theory ‘Completely

Disconnected From the Observations’

Extensive analysis of temperature trends in the Arctic reveals that there has been no detectable long-term change since the beginning of the 20th century, and thus predictions of a sea ice-free Arctic in the coming decades due to dramatically rising temperatures are not rooted in observation.

IS THE ARCTIC MELTING?

THEORY VS. OBSERVATIONS

Abstract

[T]he Arctic Circle is the most extreme place on our planet where seasonal changes can range from +35.0°C in July and -65.0°C in February; […] on average 75% of the year is spent below the melting point of water [and] on average the Arctic will be covered by ice/snow for the same proportion of time, i.e., 75% or 9 months of the year.

The same seasonal extreme variations in air temperatures are also observed in ice cover variations observed in the Arctic where the winter‘s ice cover can be between 14- 16 million km2, while during summer the area covered can vary between 4 and 8 million km2. Based on observations, dating back to 1900, it can be concluded that it is physically impossible for the Arctic to be ice/snow free in the foreseeable future since the air temperatures were as cold in 2013 as they were in 1900.

Since ice cannot melt below 0.0°C, all these observations point towards the Arctic remaining ice-covered for the next 100 years. It must also follow that any theory predicting imminent melting of the Arctic ice cap cannot be based on thermometer-recorded data and, therefore, must be wrong and will merely be an artefact of using the term temperature where there is no true association with the calibrated thermometer, the instrument used to measure temperature in all physical, medical and engineering sciences.

Conclusion

So, what are the hard facts about Arctic that are based on the observations made by calibrated thermometers at 20 stations across the Arctic Circle and which conclusions can be made based on those observations?

1. Temperatures in the Arctic between 1900 and the present day are a long distance below 0.0°C for at least 9 months per year and can be as low as -64.0°C

2. It is impossible to separate the youngest from the oldest years using thermometerbased daily or monthly Tmax/Tmin data

3. The total ranges observed in daily Tmax/Tmin data can be as high as 100.0°C and as low as 75.0°C making the Arctic Circle the most variable and extreme area on our planet therefore making any accurate forecasting of future temperature patterns and trends impossible

4. The switches between the extreme hot to extreme cold temperatures are very frequent and very unpredictable and can occur within the same month, same year or between two consecutive years

5. The large observed ice gain/loss variations are pre-determined by the large observed variations in air temperatures

6. Since the air temperatures are chaotic in nature it must follow that the extent of the ice cover has to be chaotic as well and, since we cannot predict future events of a chaotic system, we cannot predict future trends of either air temperatures or ice cover patterns

Based on the facts above only one conclusion can be made in reference to the putative melting of the Arctic: historical thermometer-based data tells us that between 1900 and 2014 arctic temperatures were for 75% of the time consistently long distance below 0.0°C; the ice cover in the winter months is still consistently more than 14,000,000km2 and, therefore, it is physically impossible for the Arctic to be already melting since nothing has changed since 1900 till present day. The only sensible forecast for the future would be to expect the same extreme events to continue until thermometer-based evidence tell us otherwise.

Let me conclude this paper by answering the question asked in the first part of the title by a categorical No, the Arctic is not melting. As long as temperatures remain the same as they have been for the last 100 years the Arctic will remain frozen in the long winter months and partly melt during very short summer months.

The answer to the second question is that the theory of global warming is completely disconnected from the observations since their definition of temperature is based on some theoretical number that has nothing to do with the temperature that is measured by calibrated thermometer and, most importantly, used as an international standard by the scientific community. Since the theory is clearly wrong about forecasting the temperature patterns in the Arctic, all other predictions made by the theory must be wrong too.

New Paper: No Greenland Temperature Or Sea Ice Changes Since 1600 Either

“Our study aims to investigate the oceanographic changes in SW Greenland over the past four centuries (1600-2010) based on high-resolution diatom record using both, qualitative and quantitative methods. July SST during last 400 years varied only slightly from a minimum of 2.9 to a maximum of 4.7 °C and total average of 4°C. 4°C is a typical surface water temperature in SW Greenland during summer. … The average April SIC was low (c. 13%) [during the 20th century], however a strong peak of 56.5% was recorded at 1965. This peak was accompanied by a clear drop in salinity (33.2 PSU).”

“Our results show that SMB [surface mass balance] for the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7 ± 0.13 Gt decade−1 since 1800 AD…”

“…representing a net reduction in sea levelof ∼ 0.02 mm decade−1 since 1800 and ∼ 0.04 mm decade−1 since 1900 AD. The largest contribution is from the Antarctic Peninsula (∼ 75 %) where the annual average SMB during the most recent decade (2001–2010) is 123 ± 44 Gt yr−1 higher than the annual average during the first decade of the 19th century.”

In sum, there is nothing thermally unusual occurring today in either the Arctic or Antarctic, precluding the clear detection of an anthropogenic temperature or ice-melt signal in the polar regions.

If you look at this chart which goes back to 1920, it is clear that the 24 year period between 1922 and 1946, is considerably warmer than the 24 year period between 1992 and 2016 (the data for the year 2017 not being in yet).

In the 24 year period between 1922 and 1946 some 12 years, ie., half the period had a positive + 4degC anomaly, whereas in the 24 year period between 1992 to 2016, only 6 years, ie., just a quarter, had a positive anomaly of + 4degC.

yet further, in the latest period, ie., 1992 to 2016 the high temperature peaks only just reached the positive + 4 degC anomaly, whereas in the earlier period, ie., 1922 to 1946, the high temperature peaks reached + 5 degC, + 6deg C and even + 7 degC. No year has come close to the year 1936/7 with its plus + 7 degC temperature.

It is quite clear that when one looks at the position over a period of 100 years, Arctic temperatures are not rising. Of course, there is multidecadal variations, as there is with ice conditions, and these multidecadal variations appear to track the AMO. They certainly to dot track changes in CO2.

One of the more interesting things about all the things being written about Earth systems and CO2 is the, so called, ‘greening’.

This is a very visible thing, and where it leads is worth watching.

However, there may be other things happening we do not see directly.
Maybe the formation of Calcium carbonate is increasing. I assuming this is being studied, but I have not seen reports.

Anyway, several years ago I took the view that CO2 induced global warming was not happening and not going to happen. This frees up reading time to focus on things that are happening.
I mentioned the ‘greening’ issue.
I’m also trying to read more about demography. Several countries (Japan, Russia, …) have declining and aging populations. This is an important issue.
Another subject: In the USA, we have been fighting forest fires for over 100 years. Prior to that (about 1880) the natives (aka Indians) used fire as a land management tool.
So, for about 140 years there has been an in-filling of woody material. Fuel has built up in layers. Further, trees have matured and died or have reached mature stages and are unsound.
In some places, Oregon, Washington, Montana and into Canada, we are entering a era of mega-fires. This will be fascinating to watch.
Meanwhile, we are cutting, chipping and in other ways trying to make our home (in a rural area) fire-safe. [Official wording is “FireWise.”]

Dr Darko Butina is retired scientist with 20 years of experience in experimental carbon-based chemistry in drug discovery and 20 years of experience of modelling data generated by calibrated instruments and various biological screens. Since 2010, he published 3 papers analysing daily temperature patterns across the globe, with 3 more coming out in next 2-3 months. He also runs his own webpage at http://www.l4patterns.com .

Dr Darko Butina is retired scientist with 20 years of experience in experimental carbon-based chemistry in drug discovery and 20 years of experience of modelling data generated by calibrated instruments and various biological screens.

Of course he is retired and is only slightly more qualified than you and me to write a paper about climate science topics in that he probably should know how to write a paper.

From the author:

Since the theory is clearly wrong about forecasting the temperature patterns in the Arctic, all other predictions made by the theory must be wrong too.

And what happens when the author is wrong about one thing, is he then also wrong about all other things he/she wrote?

In sum, there is nothing thermally unusual occurring today in either the Arctic or Antarctic, precluding the clear detection of an anthropogenic temperature or ice-melt signal in the polar regions.

In sum, there is nothing thermally unusual occurring today in either the Arctic or Antarctic, precluding the clear detection of an anthropogenic temperature or ice-melt signal in the polar regions.

Is that so?

Quite so. The Arctic is still about 2 or 3 degrees C colder now than it was when CO2 levels were in the 250 to 260 ppm range.
—
Spolaor et al., 2016https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160928083222.htm
“Researchers have found that 8000 years ago the Arctic climate was 2 to 3 degrees warmer than now, and that there was also less summertime Arctic sea ice than today.”
—
The Arctic is also colder now than it was during the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, as the below graph shows, nearly all of the modern warming occurred prior to 1940, or before CO2 emissions began rising to any substantial degree.

Based on observations, dating back to 1900, it can be concluded that it is physically impossible for the Arctic to be ice/snow free in the foreseeable future since the air temperatures were as cold in 2013 as they were in 1900.

So when it is convenient, the energy needed to melt ice comes from the air? In any other case, you argue – correctly – that the ocean has the majority of the heat content.

Um, no. The energy needed to melt ice comes from the Sun, which warms the oceans, and that heat energy is cycled throughout the Earth-Ocean system on decadal- and centennial time scales (AMOC, AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc.). The oceans warm, or cool, and then the surface temperatures warm, or cool. The warmer or cooler air is the by-product of the warmer or cooler oceans. The Sun’s energy is modulated by its meteorlogical constituents (mostly clouds, aerosols, wind currents, water vapor).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC091iC09p10585/abstractThe heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. Maps of the long-term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented. Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034007/fullThe summer extent of the Arctic sea ice cover, widely recognized as an indicator of climate change, has been declining for the past few decades reaching a record minimum in September 2007. The causes of the dramatic loss have implications for the future trajectory of the Arctic sea ice cover. Ice mass balance observations demonstrate that there was an extraordinarily large amount of melting on the bottom of the ice in the Beaufort Sea in the summer of 2007. Calculations indicate that solar heating of the upper ocean was the primary source of heat for this observed enhanced Beaufort Sea bottom melting. An increase in the open water fraction resulted in a 500% positive anomaly in solar heat input to the upper ocean, triggering an ice–albedo feedback and contributing to the accelerating ice retreat.

[T]he ocean has the majority of the heat content. … So this is completely normal?

Yes, current ocean temperatures are well within the “normal” range, albeit significantly colder than most of the last 10,000 years…

So why post something from an author that seems to have a different opinion?

He doesn’t have a different opinion. He understands that the oceans and air are heated by the Sun’s energy.

He clearly claims that it’s the air temperature that is causing ice to melt/freeze.

No, he clearly states that the air temperature is a reflection of the water temperature, which will always melt and freeze at determinable temperatures (0 and 100 degrees C).

“In the case of water, we know it will always melt at 0.0°C and boil at 100.0°C at a pressure of 760.0 mm Hg irrespective where it is measured. We can also predict whether water will be in its solid or liquid state not by measuring the temperature of the water itself but by measuring the temperature of molecules that comprise air, N2 and O2 that are in contact with water surface.”

And he uses 20 stations in the Arctic circle to calculate air temperatures. He does this because we don’t have reliable ocean heat content data that extends back to 1900 for the Arctic circle.

There is a difference between saying the air causes ice to melt/freeze (your claim) and saying that air temperatures correspond to the boiling/freezing point of water.

Based on observations, dating back to 1900, it can be concluded that it is physically impossible for the Arctic to be ice/snow free in the foreseeable future since the air temperatures were as cold in 2013 as they were in 1900.

Repeating the quote isn’t helping you, SebastianH. There is a difference between saying the air causes ice to melt/freeze (your claim) and saying that air temperatures correspond to the boiling/freezing point of water. We can detect changes in air temperatures that correspond to sea ice melt/freezing by analyzing data from temperature stations in the Arctic, as those data points exist extending back to 1900. I am confident that Dr. Butina is immensely more knowledgeable about the chemical properties of thermometers and general thermal physics than you are.

Anyway, the video … should have been enough to demonstrate that Artic ice is melting

The Arctic ice is melting during the summer. The Arctic ice is expanding in the non-summer months. Similar summer melting and non-summer expansion of sea ice has been occurring in the Southern Hemisphere too, though there has been an overall increase in SH sea ice extent for the last 35-40 years, which is in opposite sign to the Arctic. The melting and expanding of Arctic sea ice around an overall mean has not varied to any significant degree for the last 100+ years, as shown here:

Serious question: do you think the GHE is a heat source and do you think AGW proponents are saying that something else than the Sun is heating this planet?

To quote how your side puts it, CO2 is a pollutant that traps heat and “causes the planet to get hotter. That’s what’s known as the greenhouse effect.”

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/global-warming-101Global warming occurs when carbon dioxide (CO2) and other air pollutants and greenhouse gases collect in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and solar radiation that have bounced off the earth’s surface. Normally, this radiation would escape into space—but these pollutants, which can last for years to centuries in the atmosphere, trap the heat and cause the planet to get hotter. That’s what’s known as the greenhouse effect.

“Anyway, the video link (…[NASA propaganda video redacted…]…) should have been enough to demonstrate that Artic ice is melting” – SebH

The video demonstrates nothing but what NASA wants you to believe. It is NOT a video of the actual ice. It appears to be a computer simulation of a reconstruction of Arctic sea ice, probably based on adjusted data (sound familiar?).

“In this NASA Earth Energy Budget, 85.5% of the thermal radiation from the surface of the Earth is absorbed in the atmosphere and returned to the surface. By some means of magic, whatever bodies absorb this radiation fail to re-radiate it to colder parts of the atmosphere preferentially or even to radiate half of that absorbed energy to colder regions or to space. No, the re-radiated heat is radiated most strongly to the higher temperature Earth’s surface with a strong prejudice against radiation to colder bodies or to space.”

[…] Recently there have been a lot of alarmist claims that CO2 is causing the polar ice sheets to melt. In order to melt ice, it takes a ginormous amount of energy, and for the atmosphere to melt ice the #1 criteria is that the atmospheric temperature must be above 0°C. 0°C represents the melting point of water, 100°C represents boiling. In order for the polar ice to be melting due to CO2 caused Global Warming ( and it has to be warming not climate change, only warmth melts ice), one would have to demonstrate that the polar regions have temperatures above 0°C during the time of the ice melt. The problem is, the polar regions haven’t shown any warming over the past 100 years. […]

[…] Recently there have been a lot of alarmist claims that CO2 is causing the polar ice sheets to melt. In order to melt ice, it takes a ginormous amount of energy, and for the atmosphere to melt ice the #1 criteria is that the atmospheric temperature must be above 0°C. 0°C represents the melting point of water, 100°C represents boiling. In order for the polar ice to be melting due to CO2 caused Global Warming ( and it has to be warming not climate change, only warmth melts ice), one would have to demonstrate that the polar regions have temperatures above 0°C during the time of the ice melt. The problem is, the polar regions haven’t shown any warming over the past 100 years. […]

…then all his data is in the public domain and his paper takes the reader very clearly and methodically through his methods and calculations. In other words, it is an open invitation for anybody who cares to do so, to refute his reasoning.

Whether he is right or wrong, it is a particularly well written paper.

I do have a science degree albeit in a different area.
That said, the local council at Bondi put a plaque at the north end of the beach in 2007. This was in response to hysterical claims that the beach would be gone if ‘we’ did not do something about stopping sea level rise.
The plaque showed 2007 level ? and projection for 2016 ( naturally higher).
I have no idea whether the plaque was put up at low or high tide.
Anyway the beach is as deep today as at any time I’ve seen it over 50 yrs.
So I went to check the levels on the plaque.
This was at the top of a summer High King Tide and very flat surf!
Not only could I not see the plaque because it was covered in sand, the water was at least 10 mts shy of the plaque. !!!

As a side note the Murray Darling river…one of the longest in the world was going to run dry and the people in Adelaide I assume would therefore die of thirst. ( if we didn’t do something )
It is currently full to near overflowing !